Power has historically taken on different meanings and functions. For Max Weber, power is simply instrumental, while Hannah Arendt considers it communicative and Michel Foucault as strategic. Although power is traditionally defined as essentially repressive and negative, I will argue, following Arendt and Foucault, who share similar objections to Weber's model but different views on the normative value of power, that power Power can be both creative, since it produces knowledge. , and positive, because it encourages solidarity. Weber defends the traditional view of power as the State, defining it as "the essential instrument of all politics", serving to implement the regime through subjugation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay This view holds that power is something that can be possessed, contained in a ruler who imposes rules on his subjects ; for example, he states that "the professional politician can feel himself elevated above the everyday level by the feeling of exercising influence over men, of participating in power over their lives. » Weber distinguishes two types of power which complement each other. On the one hand, coercive power, which he defines as the ability to use one's power independently of opposition, particularly with the use of force. On the other, a legitimate authoritarian power which will ensure the conformity of its subjects; among these are “traditional rules, based on custom (for example, inheritance and religious or royal lineages); charismatic reign, relying on the exceptional character of the leader; and a rational legal rule, relying on legal statue and judicial action to enforce rationally designed rules. “In short, Weber advocates a definition of power which is essentially negative since it is used to restrict the freedom of subjects; hence the need for threats and violence. Arendt rejects Weber's power as a model of sovereignty, “for power itself, in its true sense, can never be possessed by a single man; power is born… every time men act “in concert” and disappears… every time a man is alone. » Arendt thus defines power, not as a fixed physical or mental quality that can be acquired, but as a potential that can be actualized where words are "used to reveal realities", that is to say intentions and motivations, and actions “to establish relationships and relationships.” create new realities. “Thus, power is the result of action, speech and action, arising from plurality or collective action, and depends on discussion and debate since it cannot result from coercion, but “arises from the will of the people”. “Power is generated in the apparently public space which “is born whenever men are together in the way of speaking and acting”; therefore, the common life of men is a requirement. For Arendt, the legitimacy of our political institutions is established by this collectivity. Overall, Arendt defines power as a positive force because it inspires people to come together and stimulates rational deliberation, leading to cooperation and action that leads to political change. Similarly, Foucault criticizes Weber's model of sovereign-subject relationship, which can be identified with the economistic analysis of power, more precisely, what he calls the liberal approach where "power is considered a right , which can be owned like a commodity, and which can be transferred.